and and i look at that as saying we're going to create a special unit for those who is have been victimized and i emphasize victimized by criminals because of identity theft and we set up a special unit for them to call, and we're only helping not even you know two-thirds when we have the highest level of assistance dedicated to their assistance and even those who do get through to get assistance according to advocates testimony the average wait on hold was one hour and six minutes. that is not how we should be treating victims. and it goes to our previous discussions here that you know, we need to recognize this for what it is. it's a crime and there is a victim of the crime. and that we set up a special unit is a good thing but if the unit can't deliver to help the victims, that's not a good thing. and so dropping the 60% level of

service overall is of concern. but dropping to 12% for those that are supposed to help those who have been victimized and even those who got help had to wait over an hour on load, anybody in this room enjoy being on hold for over an hour? i don't think so. i'm amazed that anybody stayed on hold for over an hour quite frankly. that is just not acceptable. you know, that is not how you treat a victim of a crime. so, i want to recognize that you're trying to do the right thing here. but we are far everywhere where we -- we are far from where we need to be. >> just to make a clarification. the unit that that number went to is different from the unit where taxpayers who think that they've been identity theft victims calls the irs out of the blue. the unit that those statistics go to are unit where the irs has

sent taxpayers letterens and said we think there's a question about your return and we're not going to hold it. i just wanted to make that zmings absolutely. if i didn't make that clear but where there's a belief that there's identity theft here and so we set up a special unit them for them to respond, and then we put them on hold for an hour if they get through and as the numbers show, the overwhelming majority do not. >> i agree, mr. chairman. i was unaware of the 35%. i was aware of the earlier problems. i thought we had resolved that. i know we have added more staffing and maybe we've not added enough. >> yeah. >> not only do they not have adequate staffing and the extended wait times, if someone calls back to find out what the status is of their case they're assigned to someone who may not have seen the case before. they're not handed to the same person who has the institutional

knowledge of their case. in addition, such as recently the tax filing deadline, people who are normally assigned to those types of cases are reassigned to answering regular tax concerns froms other taxpayers who dial the 800 number or walk into taxpayer assistance centers. so there is a way that the irs could run this system a lot better than it is. >> you raise an important part on whether the irs has looked at this in the past or not. especially when set up that special unit to respond to specifically is certainly at a fraction of the numbers here. but i'll equate it to my office or you know, ranking member town's office. we opened about over 4,000 new constituent cases a year as an office. and that is individuals. now, if someone calls in and the person they're working with is

not in, another member of my staff can pull up their case to see if there's been anything updated in it since they last talked to the staffers but there is a dedicated staff person that they are working with. and that does make a huge difference than having to start over. and so, i don't know if that's anything that irs has looked at doing so that when you call in, that you once you make that contact, that you then have, all right, here's your case manager that you should be dealing with so you're not starting over and kind of having to reeducate every time you call in. is that something considered? >> so it is considered. i don't know whether it would work here or not, to be honest with you. generally and i think that taxpayer advocate and i may disagree on this, we don't necessarily have the resources to say this is your person. what we ought to be doing is to ensure whoever does get on the phone with you has all the information in front of them. that's what we try to do. >> is that done through the case

files electronically, whoever helps you them documenting? >> that's our attempt. our attempt is to have -- and remember, we're talking about this is a microcosm confident way we're doing business on the phone generally where our systems don't permit a single person. we can't do a single number to a single person at this point. we are looking at it. in a perfect world, yes, i would have an individual who was assigned to my account and we've not been able to get there in terms of resources or systems to date. >> you all i know is that not just in identity theft but in correspondent exam and in ought played collection, some of the note of significant and frequent complaints we get are taxpayers saying i've talked to four different people. i've had to explain my situation over and over again for each one. i've looked personally at some of the notes that people take. you cannot build a story from the notes. you don't know what the person before you did.

and to mr. white's point, this is where you go into the return on investment. you know, to do the analysis to say by saving pennies, you know for by having anybody answer the phone whoever is the next available person, are you really saving money down stream where you get the wrong results and the taxpayer keeps calling back and then you go to a taxpayer advocate service where you have two employees working the case, mine and the irs employee or you go to appeals which is a higher graded employer. you go to tax court where you've got the lawyers and the paralegals and the tax court personnel involved. and can we really do a good return on investment on that and say no, you're not saving money. >> when you add to that the data that's been shared here today that we know that our best chance of eliminating the tax gap is a voluntary compliance so the person who's calling in is trying to figure out what's up, whether -- i was using an example of the victim calling in because they've been defrauded or victimized but for anybody

call in, the fact that weigh they're calling in is a good thing. we want to get them the assistance they need and the data shows that. that goes to that issue of taxpayer services the return on investment versus enforcement. so yeah, i think it is a penny saved and a pound lost. i mean, it's -- it doesn't seem to be a well thought out approach. let me and an issue where i want to acknowledge what i think is a very positive step in the area of identitity theft if i understand this correctly and this is something we raised in the first hearing on identity theft last june i guess it was, and that is somebody files a return fraudulently. the legitimate taxpayer then submits their return, finds out somebody already filed and got a $4,000 refund and it's going to take awhile for us to work through.

even when that happens and we're working on shortening that time frame for the victim to be made whole, that in the past, the victim couldn't get any information about the fraudulent conduct even though it was submitted in their name, their social security. as i understand that your general counsel has issued an opinion now that says the legitimate taxpayer has a right to that information of the fraudulent material that was submitted. and then can authorize, i want that information and i want to be able to share it with law enforcement because i'll use the example of a couple of the citizens who testified last year. i guarantee you, if they have been given a year ago, the information, they probably would have gone to new york with the information, gone to the nypd and said listen, here's where the check went. here's a bank. let's get the photos from the bank that will show who came in and you know collected that money. if they had the information. at that point, they were being told no, but is that correct,

that it's been changed that they have a right to that information? >> so it is correct, mr. chairman. that we have the opinion of counsel that we can share that information. it will require and what we're doing as we speak we're rolling out a pilot with some local law enforcement. the real issue is we cannot share this information with local law enforcement. >> but the taxpayer can authorize it to be shared, right? >> the taxpayer can authorize through a waiver for it to be shared. and we're rolling that out as we speak. >> that's great to hear. using the cases of tampa and local law enforcement in florida, you know, if the legitimate taxpayer can say hey, i want to work with local police. give them everything you have. i think that's going to be an important step because i understand when you're talking about the average of i think $3500 or $4,000 as the fraud lent return or refund that from a prioritization of resources that cost at the national level

trying to go after those, but the local guys that's what they do every day. that's what my local police are helping citizens every day is those smaller types of crime or fraudulent conduct. so i think that's a very positive step. while i'm very displeased with the level of service on the taxpayer protection unit, i do want to recognize that's a very important step in the right direction. maybe two other issues here before we wrap up and i appreciate all of our witnesses' patience. the issue of the social security death master list and the fact that that's pretty much open game for fraud lent conduct or those who want to the commit fraudulent conduct. i know the irs i believe the position is to restrict access to that to -- is that correct that you would like you know action to restrict who can access that information. >> i think we are working with the social security administration and the administration more generally on legislation that would do that.

>> so that's an ongoing effort so not ready yet to say here's what we think is the right approach within the administration? >> i think that's right. i that i that your question would be very well answered to go to ssa and have that discussion because i think they are actively engaged and talking to people about it as we speak. >> something that we want to look at of how to do that because to me, that the fact that that information is too freely shared sometimes for legitimate purposes shared but is just too big a target for those who is are committing account identity theft. >> uh-huh. >> the other final issue is more of a broad issue, and that is the balance and if any of the four of you would like to comment when it comes to the fraudulent and this goes to the issue of the timing of matching documentation with returns. you know, i know it's a balance between a quick refund, you know, which those who is are

entitled to refunds want it to be as quick as they can although i also say that most taxpayers don't have to wait for a refund if they wanted to adjust their filings, you know, and get the money in their paycheck. so they could get an stant and the takenious every paycheck rather than one lump sum. human nature, miss olson you talked about human nature and behavioral management. i will admit i'm one that it's kind of a forced savings and i'd rather get $1,000 back than have to write a check for $1,000. it's i think a mental psyche of how you look at it. but it is a choice that every taxpayer has to try to ensure that they don't have to get a refund. in fact, if they want, they can owe money and come out ahead because they had the money and then write a lump sum check. but given that, how do we balance that quick refund though against the risk?

and that we're not able to match and is there today with electronic filings, as the use of electronic filings more and more the norm, more and more the norm also is the ability to that the typical individual doesn't just have a computer but they have a printer that's also a scanner. that's the norm with printers today. if you buy a printer today, it can scan, fax and print. have you looked at saying if you want to the file electronically and maybe it's not all refunds but you have to scan in your w-2s and so you know, rather than waiting for anything to be mailed in or match-up with the third party if you want an electronic return you scan in your w-2s, especially when it's paid taxpayers. what's the percentage? is it like 65% or higher that use paid -- >> it's above 60.

>> 60 plus. for those it would especially be i guarantee you if you're a paid provider, your ability to scan a document is a given. is that something that we should consider? >> so if i could start out, a couple of things. i think twompl separate points all together which is enforced savings. i think it's absolutely true for you and i. i think it's less true as you go down the income scale where you have the earned income tax credit. >> agreed. >> and maybe one-third of people float in and out of on an annual basis. it's a changing circumstance. for those. >> i think that's a very relevant point. >> on the second piece, i think we should look at everything we possibly can. and we need to get better at our screening. we need to get as much information as fast as we canning to apply it to refunds as they come in. on the scanning item, we certainly should look at it. i think at this point to be

honest with you, we still get a lot of paper fraud in. and they have dummied up w-2s. so i'm not sure that that in and of itself, it may be a piece of a larger strategy and is worth looking at but i'm not sure in and of itself that that would be a game-changer for us. >> mr. white? >> i agree. the same concern about the scanning that the i.d. thieves are making up w-2s and so getting one from the taxpayer doesn't guarantee that it's legitimate what you need to do is get the information returns, the w-27 third party employers faster. that's where technology may help but a lot of the deadlines mr. miller mentioned earlier for due dates for those information returns were set many years ago and with more modern technology, it may be possible for third parties for at least certain kinds of information returns to submit them much earlier in the

filing season so that they could be matched to returns. now, there's some other things that need to be in place to make this work, as well. irs is modernizing its information systems but obviously you need systems in place that can handle massive amounts of data. irs gives billions of information returns each year. so you're talking about a lot of information that you'd have to match very quickly so that you are not making taxpayers wait for refunds. >> mr. chairman, i would note those certain software tax packages, turbotax being one do allow for people to download their w-2s electronically. it does exist, but it's $65 to purchase that package and some people just don't want to make that be expense. >> we've thought a lot about behavioral modification. i think that the demise of refund anticipation loans has you know, refund anticipation

loans was told taxpayers you can get your dollars tomorrow. suddenly the irs getting you money through direct deposit and electronic filing within ten days looked like a long time. we have to really think hard about messaging and communicating with taxpayers to talk to them be what's the reality of the filing season and they do want us to do these refund screens and that the first year it may be hard because you're depending on this money like you have always but if you can adjust your behavior, then you can depend on it in the future at the same time every year. the lower income really use this for paying their heating bills, you know, for paying -- putting it down. the studies show they use it for things like buying refrigerators, buying school clothes, stuff like that. so i think we have to work with the larger community to get people used to it but i think the irs has to step up to that plate and really change

expectations and behavior. >> plaintiff towns, just one question to wrap up. two final questions related here. one is with the information that's provided with the push on certified tax preparers that you're moving forward with, when there's a professional tax preparer, paid tax preparer, do they have to certify, i know they sign that they prepare the document, the return. but do they have to certify in some way that they've seen like the w-2s or the supporting documentation? is there affirmation they have to making? >> so i don't think the signature means that, mr. chairman. i can come back to you on a more detailed discussion of under circular 230 what exactly are they signing when he this he return the return. but the due diligence they are required to do i think is at a broader level than that, but i can come back to you with a more

specific answer on that. >> that would be great. final is just in looking again at conduct and the type of fraud, are we able today, we talked last year, it was about the issue of debit cards and whar whar what percentage of identity theft is paid out on debit cards versus a deposit into a bank card. the ability for a criminal that they have to go in and access money in a bank account, there's much more of a trail to be followed if we're going to pursuit criminal conduct different than with a debit card. >> i think i'll have to come back to you with that, as well. we have seen an increase in the use of debit cards. you're quite right. there are pluses and neminuses that. >> i think that goes to the broader issue assessment of the information that we have and if we're identifying say there's $400,000 possible cases or

actual cases can of identity theft that were identified and stopped, what percentage of those wherever asking for refunds on debit cards as to should we be issuing you know, and as we should be issuing debit cards. >> i'm not sure we'd know that. >> that's what i'm getting after, is i think we need to know that to -- >> but i think the debit card has an account, the same as a bank account and you would -- >> the financial management services, part of treasury that's making the payment, it's an account number. it does not know, i believe, whether it's a debit card or a bank account. that would be something that was known by the software providers. those are discussions that are ongoing. but i agree, we need to -- >> when you hear the testimony or the information from, like, tampa, where they go in and a former drug dealer, they go in and they have 50 debit cards with $4,000 in each of them that were fraud lenlt returns, it seems -- it seems like, you know, some evidence that the

criminals who are -- organized criminals doing this are kwluzing that method more likely than any other method. so, again, i -- it's a data analysis is what i'm after. >> i think one other point, because there's no doubt that we're seeing the same stories you are where there are rows of debit cards -- i want to make it clear, it's not -- if we had stopped the refund, the criminals will have a debit card. he or she will have a debit card. there will be nothing loaded on it. and when he or she goes to load, there will be nothing there, because it will have been stopped either by us or, frankly, by the debit card company because it's finding fraud as well. though it stacks, i'm sure some of them have money, don't get me wrong, but it shouldn't be assumed that they all have money. >> yeah. i'm going to -- a final comment, then we need to wrap up. on the issue of identity thift, i want to just re-emphasize that

this is about victims, legitimate taxpayers who are victimized by criminals. and there's maybe no more egregious example of what i heard reported this week of a fallen hero in this nation who gave his life in defense of the nation and then when his parents, you know, come to learn that not only they lose their son but their deceased son who gave his life in defense of this nation was victimized by identity theft related to taxpayer refund, you know, that just epitomizes, you know, the type of victimization that's occurring. we need to do right by that family and by every, you know, individual or family out there that -- those legitimate, hardworking, law-abiding citizens are not victimized, and if and when they are, that we prioritize them. and so i know we can do a lot better in that regard. i want to thank each of you for your testimony, your patience here, especially with the break with the floor votes, thank the

ranking member. and as hopefully came through, we're not about gotcha. we're about trying to just work through this issue with you and how can we help. and whether it's the issue of adequate funding for the resources that make that return on investment, we invest in the end, the taxpayers come out ahead, whether it be p on legislative authority that you don't have that we need to provide. but on all aspects we want to work with each of you and your offices. george, do you have a final comment? i ju . >> i just wanted to clarify one thing about the statute of limitations. mr. miller was correct it's ten years to collect. there is no statute of limitations on fraud if it's willful fraud, but there is a three-year statute of limitations on the irs' ability to examinations on tax returns. so there's something that needs to be clarified here. >> appreciate that. >> the overall issue. >> clarification. did you want to make a closing

remark? >> actually, i want to associate myself with your remarks and thank the witnesses for being here. and to say that if there's something we simply we need to do on this side, feel free to let us know, because i just think there's some areas there that need to be dealt with, you know, and that -- and i think that working together we can deal with it. you know, and i think that -- thank you very much, mr. chairman, for this hearing. >> again, we'll have the record open for seven days for some of that extra, extraneous materials or response to to some of the questions. appreciate the witnesses' testimony, and this hearing stands adjourned.

here's a look at what's coming up live today on the c-span networks. the national community reinvestment coalition hosts a conference on the u.s. economy and the housing market. the group will hear from the man overseeing a $25 billion mortgage settlement reached between 49 states and five banks. the conference will also feature national urban league president mark moriel and former ceo of fannie mae, franklin raines. that's live today at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and later, republican presidential candidate mitt romney and arizona senator john mccain are speaking at the republican national committee's state chairmen's meeting. the event is taking place at the princess hotel in scottsdale, arizona. rens pree vis will also speak at the luncheon. that's 3:45 p.m. eastern also on c-span.

from the colonial era, prohibition, to today, drinking for better or worse has always been a part of the american landscape. "saturday night live" on american history tv, a history of alcohol in america. watch our simulcast of "backstory" with the american hisly ri guys. host ed ayers, brian ballo regale with tales of beer. this weekend on c-span3. on wednesday, the senate budget committee held a hearing to consider chairman kent conrad's 2013 budget resolution. the proposal is based on the bowles/simpson plan and includes $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. during the hearing, the budget committee ranking member, jeff sessions, along with budget committee members continually voiced their disappointment for not being able to have a mark-up hearing and offer amendments.

according to senator conrad, there is no date scheduled on which the mark-up votes would occur, and he doesn't expect an agreement before the november elections. this is just under three hours. >> the meeting will come to order. we want to welcome everyone to the senate budget committee today. the committee meets today to begin consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. i will have a statement, then we'll recognize the ranking member for his statement, chen the chair will recognize other members of the committee in seniority order alternating between the sides to the extent members of different parties are available. and members will be recognized for statements from five to seven minutes. amendments will not be in order today. the mark will not be before us, as is the tradition of this

committee, until the end of our opening statements today. i did break from tradition by providing the ranking member yesterday roughly 24 hours in advance the outline of the remark that i will be introducing later today so that hopefully members will have a better idea of what they're talking about with respect to their opening statements. so we did break from tradition by giving the ranking member the outline of the mark yesterday. as i announced yesterday, i'm going to lay down as my chairman's mark the bipartisan fiscal commission plan, also known as the bowles/simpson plan. a plan which i believe represents the best blueprint from which to build a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement.

what i am proposing is is not partisan. i'm not trying to -- i am trying to break from business as usual that's gone on i think for too long. i'm hoping my senate colleagues will be open to finding a path forward that can bring us together before we face the expiration of all the tax cuts from the bush era and before we face the imposition of the sequester. the only way this can happen is if we find some way to come together. and i know it's difficult. i want to emphasize, we already have a budget in place for this year and next. so we are in a different position than we usually are with respect to a budget resolution. last year instead of a budget